notification_receiver_add

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so it's a write operation. Description adds context on id format (UUID v4 or custom string), return value (receiverId), and ordering requirement. However, doesn't mention behavior if adding duplicate receivers or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise with 5 sentences, front-loading the action. Could be more structured but avoids verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no descriptions in schema, the description partially covers usage (prerequisites, return value, one parameter) but lacks details on optional parameters, validation, and edge cases. Adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description only adds meaning for 'id' (UUID v4 or custom string) and implies origin of notificationRequestId and caseFileId from other tools. The other 7 parameters (firstName, lastName, email, sendWaUrl, otpRequired, phoneNumber, phonePrefix) are undocumented, leaving large gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool adds a recipient to a notification request, distinguishes from siblings like notification_request_create and notification_request_send by specifying prerequisites and ordering.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly provides when to use: after notification_request_create and case_file_create, before notification_request_send, and indicates saving returned receiverId for subsequent notification_certificate_get.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.